* The RFC Editor discovers that the community doesn't
quite know what to do with the STD number: It can't be
reassigned to the new document because it is at
Proposed. I shouldn't be left on the original document
because it really isn't our latest and best thinking on
the subject. And it shouldn't be withdrawn because that
leads to silly states in documents that have been
written to call on "STD 999" precisely because those
numbers were expected to refer to current specs.
As I told you at IETF, I believe we can temporarily patch this
problem by adding information to
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#STDbySTD; entries like:
RFC#: (none) STD#: 10 SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol [Was RFC 821,
obsoleted by RFC 2821 (Proposed
Standard)]
RFC#: (none) STD#: 10 SMTP Service Extensions [Was RFC 1869,
obsoleted by RFC 2821 (Proposed
Standard)]
RFC#: (none) STD#: 10 Mail routing and the domain system [Was RFC 974,
obsoleted by RFC 2821 (Proposed
Standard)]
But this might help newbies, but it would only be a patch.
So, three questions:
(1) Does the community think this is a problem worth solving?
If the answer is "no", then trying to write up a proposal is
clearly a waste of time.
Yes.
(2) Assuming a draft and mailing list are created, are people
willing to review and contribute? Do we need to start thinking
Yes.
in terms of a WG for this issue alone? (Experience with NEWTRK
suggests to me that a WG with a broader charter would be a bad
idea.)
I 'dunno'
Bob Braden
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf